Yesterday I turned in my final paper of my college career for my urban leadership class.  The topic was Richmond’s new strong mayor system, including a brief history of Richmond city government, attempts to change it from the council-manager system, the successful switch to a strong, popularly elected mayor, and how the new form of government has (or hasn’t) worked out.  In the conclusion of my paper I write, “Perhaps Wilder’s recent tactics would be acceptable if he were asserting his authority and consolidating his power in pursuit of his vision for Richmond, the vision residents wanted when they approved the new charter and elected Wilder.”  I go on to describe how I interviewed a member of Council as well as an urban scholar who was involved in the charter revision back in 2003-2004, both of whom are skeptical that Wilder has any real coherent vision for the city.   Instead, they say, he is inconsistent and improvisitorial, “making it up as he goes along” and engaging in “power grabbing.” 

So imagine my intrigue tonight while browsing through Style Weekly’s website when I found an article entitled “Methodical Tyrants.”  The caption asks if Mayor Wilder has gone too far in his “slash and burn” tactics as the city’s chief executive.  But the point in the article that interests me the most is the comparison (and contrasting) of Wilder with corporate CEOs like Harry Figgie and Jack Welch, both of whom exercised confrontational tactics toward a clear and higher purpose and mission.  When it comes to Wilder, however, the article asks, “What of Wilder’s shareholders? If there’s an endgame to creating upheaval in the assessor’s office and with legislative staffers — in the throes of finalizing a city budget — [City Council President] Pantele says he hasn’t a clue what that might be.”   The University of Richmond’s Professor Tom Shields asked another apt question: “‘If you went up to someone and asked, what’s Wilder vision, what would they say?’” … To clean up City Hall, perhaps; to make the city safer, no doubt. But when Richmonders voted to change the city charter and subsequently elect Wilder as mayor, Shields says, they were voting for someone to lead Richmond as a region, to rise above the weak city-manager system of government, something Wilder hasn’t articulated two and a half years into his term.”

Later in the article, Shields indicates he is willing to give the mayor the benefit of the doubt, allowing that Wilder may have a vision he has yet to articulate.  I also asked the urban scholar I interviewed if he believes Wilder can “redeem” himself before the end of his term.  The scholar hesitated and finally expressed his doubt (but hope) that Wilder would or could.  If Wilder demonstrates that his maneuvers are meant to empower him and the city to reach a clear set of goals, the mayor’s “City of the Future,” then perhaps Richmond will find his behavior acceptable.  But in order to govern effectively and, more importantly, leave the city in a stronger state than he found it, Wilder must recognize that the system as a whole must be strengthened, including City Council and the bureaucracy.  Only then will the mayor’s tactics be justified.